I'm just quoting Zeytoun but I believe #4 (as stated by you) would be captured by #2.

I was agreeing with you... I really feel that removing the abiguity of WOL where shareing lanes is a requirement, is more of a "issue" then actually taking a lane especially in the case of narrow lanes in a multiple lane situation, and where it is clearly spelled out that cyclists should take the lane.

I think a large issue with motorists is simple ambiguity... the motorists don't know the rules, don't care and don't understand when one cyclist does one thing and another does something else.

Joejack,

I was posting the CVC definition of intersection as excluding driveways/entrances to malls, etc.

When I made my original post, I was thinking of intersections as the CVC defines them, however, I can't remember if I've used that definition of intersection consistently before that, so I deleted it.

So if we define intersection as the CVC does, then all three follow. If we define it to include driveways, entrances, only 2 and 3 follow.

Ok, I think I understand you, although I wouldn't mind if you re-read your own first sentence and tried to make it a little clearer. If I remove the word "removing" from that sentence it makes sense but I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, or taking them out in this case.

Which means you noticed the pink flamingo in the first place and made that decision. You gotta notice to decide if something is relevant. :D

Again, I'm not a cognitive scientist, but, as I understand it, relevancy, with respect to whether one consciously notices something or not, is determined subconsciously. But there is a feedback loop.

For example, are you fond of a certain type of car? Says it's Mustangs. On your rides, I bet you probably cannot provide an accurate count of the number of, say, Camrys you encountered, but you probably could give an accurate count of the number of Mustangs you encountered. What that means is that your subconscious is programmed, if you will, to notice Mustangs and bring them to the attention of your conscious mind, while it doesn't bother your conscious with the Camrys, so you have no idea if you saw any or not. But that doesn't mean you weren't vaguely aware of the Camrys subconsciously.

Ok, I've got it now.

For everyone, including me, who has not read the CVC definition of an intersection, here it is:

Intersection
365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

Thanks JJ, I was tempted to respond to the sophist again, but now I'm not.

Are you sure you aren't taking the phrase "totally and completely" out of context? In terms of where he rides on the road, I'm sure he "totally and completely" ignores bike lane stripes. In terms of what his eyes see when he's looking at something which happens to be a bike lane stripe, I'm sure he sees the bike lane stripe.

It can be difficult to have a discussion with someone when they have a habit of quoting words out of context.

Point noted.

I didn't notice that pink flamingo just like I didn't notice the fountain in the middle of the flower bed because it's not going anywhere and thus is irrelevant to my safety while cycling in the road. Now, if kids were playing baseball near the road, I'd probably take notice just in case a ball was struck towards me. I might even look right at the flamingo they are using as third base and still not notice it because it's that irrelevant.

Maybe its just like your VC induced tunnel hearing and tunnel vision when it comes to hearing or seeing any driver miscues as you ride in your VC zone. You apparantly don't hear or see anything that would upset your equilibrium.

Oy vey!

btw your analogy isn't very good, noticing or not noticing a particular make or model of car isn't required to negotiate traffic, but noticing traffic control devices is. Unless of course you are committing 'civil disobedience' w/r/t the bike lane stripe, in which case I would presume that you are hyperconscious of it, rather than oblivious of it.

Again, it sounds to me more like he is hyperconscious of them, rather than oblivious to them. 'Totally and copletely' ignoring them has more to do with ignoring what they mean from a traffic control perspective.

btw, if Serge really rides the way he claims to ride, he is just pissing motorists off and making it worse for all the rest of the cyclists on the road.

I don't think of it as civil disobedience. I believe I understand the intent of the law, and ride accordingly which means deciding where to ride without giving consideration to the presence of the bike lane stripe.

I have long had a copy of my paper The Bikeway Controversy, published in Transportation Quarterly, on my website. Look under Articles, then Facilities, the first listed.

johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities

I have prepared another article containing my two reviews of Pucher's paper Making Bicycling and Walking Safer: Lessons from Europe. However, my web host has been having trouble since last week. Sometimes my website is readable, sometimes not. Same with my incoming email correspondence. At this time I cannot add to my website (and all of my host's phone lines are engaged, meaning lots of trouble). When I can add to my website, the two reviews will be in one article, listed second on the Facilities list.

Right, exactly the same as a Critical Mass of one.

I don't know what you're imagining or assuming, but I ride the way I claim I ride, and rarely do motorists give me reason to believe they're pissed off by it. In fact, I rarely do anything that would piss anyone off. What do you think I do that would piss someone off? Look back before merging left and see if anyone will yield for me? Some just blow by me, others choose to let me in. Do you think they feel forced to let me in, and are pissed off by it?

You've already admitted to not hearing the honks, either. Get a clue, Lou.

Well, yes, that is only one of the problems produced by bike-lane stripes. When riding properly means riding on the left side of the stripe, yes, motorists get upset because they believe that cyclists should be only on the right side of the stripe. That's one of the many reasons why bike-lane stripes are harmful to cyclists.

The discussion about the type of stripe when approaching intersections has not taken into account the various changes in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I think that it has had all three versions: terminated before the intersection, dashed approaching the intersection, and solid approaching the intersection. The solid is, if I recall correctly, the current version, or has been proposed as the next version. As a result, some stripes are done one way, some another way, and different states have different degrees of compliance with MUTCD, or have their own version. What has not been mentioned is the distance required for cyclists to make their proper moves in traffic, which is generally much longer than the distance required for a motorist to prepare for a right turn. That consideration has never been part of the bike-lane stripe supposed thought.

Pete Fagerlin most certainly IS taking my comments out of context. My comments about how bike lane stripes are "totally and completely irrelevant to me" were made in the context of deciding where to ride while I'm riding. The fact that I may notice them anyway, while waiting at a red light perhaps, and notice that the dashed part seems short, just like I may notice an irrelevant pink flamingo anyway, is noting them in a totally different context from the context of "deciding where to ride while I'm riding".

And being "totally and completely irrelevant to me" in terms of deciding where to ride is only referring to the "guidance" aspect bike lane stripes are supposed to have. It doesn't mean I would ignore the paint on a moist morning. Again, different contexts.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never said I don't hear honks.

No, but you have admitted ignoring them.

I've never noticed motorists getting upset when I'm on the left side of the stripe. But I try to make my reasons to be "out there" pretty clear whenever I am out there.

Per the CA MUTCD, the bike lane is supposed to be terminated 100 feet prior to any intersection, at 200 feet under some circumstances. Using dashed striping for that portion of it is an option that seems to be almost always taken.

You're right, I've never seen that mentioned, and it's an excellent point.

By "ignoring" honks I think I usually if not always mean (I can't recall every context where I said this right now) not getting upset by it; not letting it bug me. I do try to always acknowledge a honk by looking, smiling, conveying "huh?", nodding, waving, signalling, etc., whatever is appropriate.

Please don't make someone go find where you did.